Spoilers Star Trek: Picard 1x05 - "Stardust City Rag"

Starfleet assistant: Admiral Janeway, a report just came in that one of the officers you served with, Lieutenant Icheb, was recently killed in a violent attack involving a faked distress signal and another former officer of yours...

Janeway: Who? Where the **** is my coffee???

 

I found it one of the stronger scenes of the episode. That's authentic emotion being played out by someone who is distraught. But I can understand why it would bother some people who find such experiences uncomfortable to watch.

 

For what purpose? Intimidating patients? I remember Khan threatening McCoy with one of those displays so they seem quite functional for a display.

 

As long as there are no murderous selfish people like that around me, I think we're good in general.

 

A. Picard is not a Family Show. If this is what some people were expecting, then I understand the upsetness. But it's not. It's not intended to be. And it isn't going to be. If it were a Family Show, I'd agree with you. But it's not. How do I know this? That brings me to B...

B. It's Rated TV-MA. Shows that are TV-MA are not Family Shows. TV-MA is the television equivalent of Rated R. Family Movies are not Rated R. Family Shows are not Rated TV-MA.

C. Therefore: Picard is NOT a Family Show!

Alter your expectations to what the show is. Judge the show based on what it is. Not what it's not. That's unfair to Picard.

Likewise, I fully expected TNG to Do The Right Thing (no, not the Spike Lee movie) because it was a Family Show. I expected things to be clear-cut because they weren't just writing to adults in the audience, they were also writing to the kids. Picard isn't doing that. It's not the same type of show.

How hard is this to understand?

If you don't like the show, fine. Whatever. We all have different opinions. It's not the end of the world. But don't keep acting surprised or upset or outraged just because it's not the same type of show. Realize it's a different show and judge it on those terms.

 

Could you please provide a reference?

 

Patience.

Rome was not built in a day.

 

My complaint isn't that it's out of character, it's that I don't know what (if anything) the writers are trying to say, or what the message is that the viewer should take away from the episode. The plot and the antagonists weren't interesting or well-written enough IMO to give the killing any proper impact and it doesn't illuminate or alter anything about Seven's character, nor does it conclude the story in a satisfying or interesting way, so it just ultimately feels like yet more violence added for the sake of it.

The main plot of the episode can be summarised very quickly - the protagonists go to a casino planet, there's an unambiguously evil gang there who torture people to death, Seven shoots the leader to death. I don't think that's an unfairly reductive description of the episode, there's really nothing to the main plot beyond that, so the violence feels unearned to me and the whole thing seems to lack any kind of purpose.

To compare it with some examples of violence previously used in Star Trek, it doesn't have anywhere near the same impact as for example Seven killing the wounded Species 8472 alien in "Prey". That served a thematic purpose - it confounded Janeway's attempt to impose Federation morality onto Seven (the main theme of the episode) and showed that Janeway was being very overly optimistic to the point of arrogance in trying to mould Seven into a Starfleet officer. It also threw out an interesting debate between Seven and Janeway about whether or not it was acceptable to sacrifice the 8472 to save Voyager. The execution of the gang leader in Star Trek Picard, on the other hand, doesn't seem to say anything. Reading it very generously and giving the writers credit, we might suggest that it's supposed to show that Picard's "hope" is a character flaw and that he's ignorant of the reality of surviving on Freecloud, I suppose, but the episode doesn't drive that point - or any point - home.

 

Icheb tortured to death- give that woman a medal! Saw the twist a mile off, nice mention of Quark... but which Soong did Maddox and Agnes work with? Can't be Dr Soong... I'm still thinking Lore, since we were only told he was disassembled, and even if so, where would the bits be sent...? The Daystrom Institute perhaps? Or is there just a human Soong grandkid somewhere?

 

Perhaps her parents were part of the reunification movement.

 

It was just a reference to Soong having been one of the three people to actually construct a lifelike positronic android, not that Maddox and Agnes worked with him.

 

The gang ordered Icheb -- someone who was as close to a son to Seven -- tortured.

That was all the motivation she needed.

 

he didn't work with Soong, he tried to build upon Soong's work

 

Huh.. Not bad.
As for the gore.. Remember a certain episode with a guys head getting blown to bits scanners style then vaporizing his chest then a creepy monster coming out... Then getting vaporized.. At 8pm family viewing hour... In 1987?
... Hmm...
I liked it.. And yes.. If someone killed my son.. Id vaporized them in a heart beat..

 

Really? Because it seems fairly obvious to me.

Consider that each episode of PIC, aside from the first episode, starts with a flashback (and the first episode started with Picard’s dream of Data in Ten Forward, thematically the same thing.) This establishes that a leitmotif of this show is people being haunted by the past.

“Stardust City Rag” begins with Icheb’s extremely graphic and painful torture, something that Seven was not able to arrive in time to stop. It’s obvious from context that she and Icheb deepened their relationship upon returning to the Federation. Witnessing such a terrible crime has deeply affected Seven, and it’s the framing device for the entire episode.

In VOY, Seven was portrayed as extremely loyal to people. Her relationship with Janeway was a central feature of the show’s last four seasons. So Icheb’s fate deeply affected Seven. Add to that that the person ultimately responsible for Icheb’s death was the woman she (apparently) had a romantic relationship with. So, Seven has been deeply betrayed by her, in such a way that Seven’s loyalty was broken TWICE.

Ultimately, Seven’s story in this episode is used to show what kind of universe is out there outside the Federation, in former Romulan space. But its real effect on the audience is in our affection for the character of Seven and in showing how her story ties back to one of the ultimate themes of PIC: how broken people, haunted by their past, are driven to do desperate things.

 

There are many posters who have made the this claim about Brooks, but none of them have provided a reference. It could be that it cannot be searched easily. However, all the other facts seem to say the opposite. Outside of his stints as director, Behr has said that the only real demand he made on the production was the one having to do with his death and leaving behind a fatherless child in the finale. Much of the infusion of his interests and the presence of African American culture in Sisko's life came from Piller and the writers. According Fifty Year Mission, interviews with Behr, and Larry Nemecek, Piller started to panic that Brooks was getting bored and would leave. He started to exchange memos with the writers about how to "do better" by Sisko. The "aha" moment was when Behr went to see Brooks in his Paul Robeson play. This ended up being endemic of how they developed the character: trying to read Brooks interests rather than relying on his direct input.

 

When I say "purpose" I'm referring to the writers, not the characters. I understand why Seven of Nine killed the gang leader in-universe. What I don't understand is what the meaning of the episode is, from the perspective of the writers. Again, it's such a straightforward plot: there's a gang of one-dimensional crazy murderers. Seven shoots the leader in revenge. There's nothing else to it as far as I can see. The violence isn't used to tell us anything about the characters involved (there's nothing to learn about the gang leader because she's a caricature who exists just to get killed, and it doesn't say anything new or interesting about Seven IMO), nor is it commented or reflected upon in any way (unlike the beheading in the previous episode, where I enjoyed Picard's short rant afterwards), and so I'm left feeling like the story isn't actually saying anything. The violence is there to make things feel more Dark™, which seems to be a preoccupation of this series so far.